Or should I say admittance?

What a banal dissertation that would be, although the irony would be worth the admission.

I guess your point is that you're a dumbass

To make a firearm from scratch requires, at least, basic toolmaking skills and basic machine tools. ----- Nonsense. Do you even know how they work? Do you realize you don't even need a firearm to fire off a round? A five year old could do it. Now, do you even have a point?

http://www.vcstar.com/news/2008/jul/25/no-headline---nxxfcmorningreport26/ http://www.ocregister.com/video/?videoId=735047509001&lineupId=1125901233&play=now

and I doubt very many evil doers have the gunsmithing skills necessary to build guns, ---- Firearms are one of the simplest machines ever invented. A tube, rocks, piece of cloth, propellent and a match. Could be evil doers have a bit more sense than some. But I'll agree, most originate from a legal source. Now, what is your point. Please, tell me it isn't a whispering led army of gnomes and leprechauns delivering a chimerical vision of a world without guns. If so, I have news for you. The delusional vision is the least likely in that scenario.

Posted by: Vinny | January 01, 2011 at 09:52 PM ----- Skip the koolaid, try the hemlock.

Unless the wall between Church and State has crumbled, God doesn't have a dog in this hunt. The interjection of religion into the debate of same sex marriage, in regards to constitutionality, is moot.

That case established that denying the marriage to two people, specifically one man and one woman. Posted by: J M | January 01, 2011 at 12:55 PM ------- Chief Justice Warren--The opinion of the court. "This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court: whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. For reasons which seem to us to reflect the central meaning of those constitutional commands, we conclude that these statutes cannot stand consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment." The specifics of gender is not given in the opinion.

The Supreme Court to which you were referring was Loving v. Virginia, dated 1967. That case established that denying the marriage to two people, specifically one man and one woman, of different races was unconstitutional. It had nothing to do with, nor can it be used as precedent for, allowing same-sex marriage. Posted by: J M | January 01, 2011 at 12:55 PM ------- That's only true if you deny that sexual orientation is not covered by the 14th amendment and believe a person's civil rights can be denied based on the sexual orientation. The only question is if marriage is a civil right.

All firearms begin their service lives as legal weapons. Twist it however you like, but you can't deny that unfortunate fact. ------ Even though that is not true, if one were to agree with that "fact", what would be the point? Or is

It would be interesting to hear Mr. Ortiz's explanation on how denying the right to marry is not denying liberty or the pursuit of happiness. It's probably, "God says so!" If God's morality is that by which we are governed, Zeus help us.

This letter is a mess. Based on the author's examples, one has to conclude that the author is being insipid. The author grants advantage to predator, but dismisses(or omits) end goals. The author, either arrogantly or ignorantly, assumes that the goal for predator/prey are the same. Conceding the advantage given with the use of a HP rifle without allowing for the advantages of the prey shows an insular intellect, given that the prey's goal is seldom to kill the predator, but rather escape or evasion.

Coastal attitudes and biases do not add to our dialogue. Jack Souders ------ Bigot

Wrong again. It's not semantics and I'll tell you why. According to your scenario. Witholding equaled $5000. Taxes incurred-$4000. 5000/52= 96.15. 4000/52= 76.92. Now, how can he owe 76.92 when he has paid 96.15? Tax liability is what is owed. There is nothing owed, therefore no tax liability. Another example of why it is not semantics. To use your logic that it is, let's say that there is a $4000 liability-=meaning that at the end of the year he owes $4000. According to you, if he paid $2000 of it he would have a tax liability of $2000, AND a tax liability of $2000. That's your logic.

RYAN, your witholding for the year is say $5000 for the sake of a number and your tax return is $1000. Are you telling me you do not understand that you paid a tax liability of $4000 for the year??!!--Zeno ------ Federal income tax liability is the amount that is OWED (or a liability) the federal government on sources of income. According to your scenario ZERO is owed. THAT MEANS NO TAX LIABILITY! It is NOT will owe, HAS owed, but IS owed. In your scenario, the $4000 is NOT a tax liability, because it is not OWED! It is taxes paid. A tax refund denotes that your tax liability is zero. It has been satified, plus you overpiaid. Are you telling me you don't understand that?

Ryan, surely you understand that having no federal tax liability and being someone who gets a refund at tax time are two completely different things? Right?--Zeno ----- Nope. A refund denotes a zero federal tax liability.

Family or friend (not illegal) - 35.4% ---- Illegal. It is without permission, else it would be borrowed-given. Now, it is up to the owner to decide to press charges, however, not doing so opens up the possibility that the owner can be charged as an accessory.

As if gay sex was the only sin. Should we endeavor to purge the ranks of the military of every soldier that committed adultery Posted by: hajkar | December 20, 2010 at 02:59 PM ---- Or killed?

provactional=should read provocational

allowing the "benefits" as a provactional tool is useless, and are purely conjecture, without the mention of the pratfalls of the same decision. Pratfalls are seldom foreseeable and more often than not, create unintended/unforseeable snafus. Fortunately for the rest of us, Frank's ideas have been consisently deemed moronic. Frank's opinion on retailiation helps a country involved in two other official wars? That's a dream, bordering on nuclear nightmare

"So any lifestyle anyone thinks is normal should be OK with you Leo?" --ZENO at 5:10 Then at 5:18 wrote "but that is what it always come down to with liberals. Put wordsw in someone mouths and then argue against it." ----- You must be a liberal, unless of course, you can show where I wrote "any lifestyle anyone thinks is normal should be OK..." Just so happens I do agree with that, though, only when coupled with the Unalienable Rights given to us by the Declaration of Independence. If a same-sex marraige doesn't negate your right to Life or Liberty, what right do you have to forsake another's right to pursuit of happiness?

Legitimizing the lifestyle as normal affects 12 year olds who are confused and pressured by others.--Zeno ----- We've found the cure! All we have to do legitimize the lifestyle as abnormal and all the confusion and pressure disappears! Great work, Zeno. If we can just keep on like that for 6000 more years we can rid the world of the gays!

March 2001 would have been during Clinton's final budget and before any of Bush's fiscal policies were enacted. Therefore, it was indeed the Clinton recession. Posted by: Kevin Groenhagen | December 08, 2010 at 06:38 PM ------ Then any claim to the recovery being due to W's policies would also be incorrect since the recession, if you want to call it that, was deemed by the National Bureau of Economic Research's Business Cycle Dating to be over in Nov. 2001

"When I was younger, I used to think that the world was doing it to me and that the world owed me something and either the conservatives or the socialists or the fascists or the communists or the Christians or the Jews were doing something to me and when you're a teeny bopper that's what you think. I'm 40 now. I don't think that anymore,'cause I found out it doesn't f***ing work"--John Lennon